Some things change, some stay the same. For the first time in eight years, after the London bombings of July 7, 2005, a British citizen has been killed on British soil in a radical extremist attack — this time in the gruesome slaying of an off-duty soldier in southeast London on May 22. Video footage of the bloodstained perpetrators and multiple eyewitness accounts suggest British citizens were again guilty of the crime. In both cases, the attackers’ motivations were expressed in the language of religion — specifically, Islam.

Served as a researcher for the U.S. Commission on International Freedom (USCIRF) in Washington, DC, where she assisted in monitoring human rights and religious freedom developments in various middle eastern and african countries

Despite efforts to liberalize its economy, invite foreign investment, and develop cosmopolitan ‘global cities’, the UAE has repeatedly failed to distance itself from the murkiest of censorship practices, and has carefully maintained a grey cloud of ambiguity that continues to obscure freedom of expression. For years censorship has been an everyday reality for citizens and the millions of expatriates living in the UAE; with books, newspaper output, and Internet access all being heavily restricted. This, unfortunately, is a necessary evil of the autocratic traditional monarchies that maintain their stranglehold over the nation’s resources and its citizenry.

The U.S and Europe tend to see drafting a constitution as a way toward a negotiated peace, especially in post-conflict situations. In theory, this may seem appealing. But it can also cause greater instability by accentuating the wishes of a majority of citizens over a suppressed minority. It may be relatively easy to impose an election in a given country. It is far more difficult to establish legality, a commitment to basic rights, and a constitutional order of checks and balances within the institutions of government.